DEI and so-called progressivism are not at root of Harvard’s woes

It’s ironic that the Globe would publish an opinion piece espousing free speech and the accommodation of nonconformist viewpoints when it is that very openness that was railed against in the witch hunt that toppled Claudine Gay as president of Harvard (“To rebuild, Harvard needs to reform DEI culture,” Jan. 4). It is also infuriating how so many people have managed to conflate inclusion with exclusion.

Some ideas are highly contested because we are a nation that refuses to stop tripping over itself. While Carine Hajjar lambastes Harvard for “a stubborn adherence to the school’s prevailing progressive agenda,” many people who identify as progressive certainly don’t consider Harvard as such.

A healthy environment of open debate is a great thing to have. However, simply because an opinion is nonconformist does not necessarily make it steeped in logic, facts, and reason. Harvard’s recent troubles were more about accountability and transparency — key tenets of diversity, equity, and inclusion — than an inability to accommodate heterodox viewpoints. We’ve allowed those with the loudest voices and the deepest pockets to take up more space in the public discussion than they should.

Lastly, there is no correct way to “do” DEI. We all must become better at critical thinking and discernment, especially when it comes to analyzing root causes and interrogating sources. Yes, a range of viewpoints is good. At the same time, there are some people in our society who are just plain racist, and racism — whether it’s overt, implicit, or cloaked in oppositional culture — cannot go unchallenged.

ERIC ESTEVES Boston

Yes, a range of viewpoints is good. At the same time, there are some people in our society who are just plain racist.